I just got the demo and have started playing. The strategy seems a bit simplistic to me. There is no "cover". There does not appear to be any weaponry that is more effective against certain units. There is just damage and hit points. Some squares such as high ground should be tactically advantageous..reducing damage recieved and increasing range somewhat. Some weaponry should be more effective against different units...for example...light weapons that can be aimed quickly will be more effective against lightly armored units whereas heavy weapons will have a more difficult time hitting smaller faster moving targets. I don't see any of these seemingly basic strategy elements in the game yet. Are they planned for later patches? have I not gotten to them yet? or are these things not planned for the game at all?

It is serious strategical game, but you try to find it in other direction.
Here you should select good moment to disclose your secret ally, select best target for attack and good army composition (cheap units have small damage and speed, fast unit have limited number of hitpoints and more power weapon etc).

First of all, you are complaining about a lack of "realism", not strategy.

Strategy is planning (deciding what Allies to disclose, what front to attack on, how to spend and allocate resources), and tactics are actual battle maneuvers (flanking, concentrating fire, feinting, sieging), both of which are found in abundance in MA.

Realism is not the point of this game at all. Strategy and tactics are, and I will venture a guess that a decent player or the AI would beat you badly despite the "simplistic strategy" and lack of "basic strategy elements".

Well, I'm not saying there isn't ANY strategy, and obviously, I haven't mastered what strategy is there. It just seems like so much more could be done. Not that it matters..I can't get on the game server anyway to see if I could beat the AI..all I can do is play the tutorial

What sets apart Massive Assault from many other wargames out there is its simplicty. Wargames tend to be incredibly complex, as the developers of these games throw in every good idea they can think of. In contrast, the developers of Massive Assault instead took out all the fluff, and focused on keeping the units simple so you could instead focus on the grander strategies.

What ends up happening is that you have a game that is almost perfectly balanced (after a few iterations which removed some of the glaring balance issues), a game of constant ebb and flow with the secret ally concept, and a game where you truly can mess with your opponent on a large scale. You can lure your opponent into traps and ambushes, redirect their attention then strike their underbelly, hold a pass as you make a strategic withdrawl, etc. While these elements may be possible in other games, you get so caught up with the minute that you miss the overall grand strategy.

Yes, MA is a different game, but for me it is the perfect formula.

MA is more about the stratergy IMO simply because it does away with all those small tactical issues you'd like to see.

Well, I've been playing for a few days now and I wanted to ask a few strategy questions.

1. If a battle platform is destroyed, is the thing on it destroyed as well? One time, I could swear my missle launcher was on a platform and it got hit 6 times before it died, but other times, I have seen a single salvo from an enemy bot or launcher destroy them both.

2. What exactly is the tactical advantage of battle copters and platforms that evens up the lack of bullfrogs and levis?

3. Why do transports have such insane movement rates? Most of the strategy of this game is just mathematical. The only really creative part of strategy is the use of transports, but those are given so much tactical importance with unreasonably huge movement rates that everyone focuses their tactics around them. I would just like to see more room for tactical creativity in areas besides transports (like different damage types that are more effective against different units, anti-air weaponry, extra range advantage for high ground). I also think the movement rates of land and sea tranports are too high. Transport copters are about right IMO. To those who like the simplicity of the strategic elements, I say this to you. There is nothing simplistic about the mind-boggling array of possibilites presented by putting a land transport into a sea transport.

thats all for now..gotta go

The Battle platform takes all damage when it is attacked (not the unit on it) much like a transport. If the battle platform is destroyed so is the unit on it.



Flexibility. Platforms move the same speed on land and air, regardless of the terrain. Coupled with rocket launchers you can punish the enemy pretty severely while always staying a couple steps ahead of them. Anti-air platforms render enemy aircraft carriers pretty useless.

Battle copters also have the advantage of being able to ignore terrain, and they can move over enemy units. Makes em very difficult to hit and gives them a long effective strike range in a relatively cheap unit. Hmm, do you buy a Mortar with a 2 range 2 damage strike that moves 1 space per turn? Or a copter with the same attack values that moves 4 spaces over any terrain and any units in between for 1$ more?



One of the big parts of this game is mobility. Getting your forces from the rear line to the front, then manuvering your forces to the best ability when you are there. Its a dynamic that keeps the game moving at a reasonable pace.



As discussed earlier in this thread, adding more features such as these do not a good game make. The cool thing about MA is that there are multiple ways to deal with any threat, each with their relative advantages and disadvantages. If you are encouraged to deal with a specific threat exactly the same way every time you lose a lot of this flexibility.

Very handy to invade a country when the borders are closed by troops.
You just fly over them.
Also very handy if you want to be nasty when your country gets invaded,
a attack copter in the enemy's capital slows him down for at least one round..

And I might add, to my misfortune, the AI is very handy with this tactic. Especially if it can kill planes in the process. In fact it seems like it uses it even more after the most recent update.

Yes, it caught me with this one when it used a transport chopper to destroy three bombers. In my defence it was the first time I'd played with the new units

I feel a tiny bit better to hear it happened to you.

I am playing a game vs. AI as FN on Beotorum. I invaded with a full complement of LAV, mortars, and Tanks, and 3 bombers. AI created a Transport Chopper in guerrilla, hopped in and killed my bombers, then moved far enough back that I couldn't kill it that turn. Very clever.

(However, a turn or two later, it was my turn and I got interrupted. I hit SEC, alt-tabbed out, and did some other things. I came back only too find that the timer kept running, (I didn't know that) and that I had missed all my finishing touches and recruitment. I should have exited the game right then and voided the turn. Instead I hit OK, and then next phase AI raised 2 Transport choppers in guerrilla, and captured 2 capitals, (one entire country) and killed 6 bombers. I don't think I can win that one anymore. ) I don't know why a company would make a turn-based game, with a timer, that also didn't pause when you were out of the game.

Because the purpose of the timer would be defeated in a real-time game if minimising the app stopped the timer.

I guess this is one of those things, like the timer in the first place, that should be different against the AI. If you hit escape, you can no longer pan around and look at things, especially not if the game no longer has focus, so the timer seems like it should stop.

Oh well, next time I just make sure I cancel the turn before time runs out.

Well, I'm hoping they'll just put it on infinite time since the timer has no business being in a game with the AI "trainer".

I have the same feeling. The first time I played MAN2, AI didn't use any copter at all. One or two patches later it did..

I'm wondering if the AI is programmed to be "self learning" (don't know the right term in english)

"self-learning" works for me. Providing that the AI does learn, I wonder if it learns from everyone, or if it keeps a file on a specific person. I know it got tougher on me after I won the first 3 battles vs. AI.

I would imagine most people tend to play the AI a little bit "cheap". It looks like the AI is learning from that to fight back cheap too. It is still kind of dumb with guerrilla, but even that seems to have gotten better the more I played it. (despite the fact that it was calling itself Major when I started, and now just Conscript. I got downgraded from Lieutenant to Corporal, despite no losses yet, yet one time when I beat Kate it referred to it on the front page as "Corporal NucLe@r-UFO won vs. GENERAL Kate". I'm pretty sure she was a Conscript when I started the game.

I doubt very much that it learns. I've seen very few learning AIs in games, and they were all very basic and only one or two actually benefited from their learning.

as for the Ai's ranks they are recorded as online accounts so get points/rank the same as any player does. Chances are they'll both become Marshalls as they'll b playing about 50 times as many games as anyone else (no-one else can play more than 1 game at the same time)

I doubt they'll become Marshals as I think the ranks are based off the Glicko score. As the AIs get higher up the rankings they'll come to a point where beating a new player is worth very little, but losing to one is worth a lot, thus they will have reached their proper ranking, and thus will Glicko have proven itself

Interesting to see that the PL AI does so much better than the FNU one. I wonder if this is to do with the ability of the AI with each side, or due to new players not coping well with retaking the initiative, or with the ability to go first still a sizable advantage?